Menu

Fem-Centrism

My intent with yesterday’s (relax, they’re just tits) post was to illustrate how the reality in which we find things “normal” is rendered by fem-centristic influence. Across ethnicities, and encompassing all manner of social diversity, this influence is so insaturated into culture, laws, media, entertainment, from our collective social consciousness to our individual psyches that we simply take it for granted as the operative framework in which we live. I realize this is a tough pill to swallow, because the male imperative does in fact intersect with the female imperative depending on mutual goals. However, the point is that the operative framework, the reality we function in, is defined by the feminine.

I can remember first becoming aware of just the hints of this the first time I watched a popular sit-com on TV with a critical eye. There simply were no positively masculine actors or roles in ANY show, and rather every male was ridiculed for his masculinity. This then led into other aspects of society and media I was just starting to become aware of. Feminization was everywhere, but my inner guilt for even considering that possibility was hindering my unplugging from it.

I remember at first feeling guilty about feeling offended by just my noticing this. I felt ashamed of myself for thinking that maybe things weren’t as ‘normal’ as women would like me to think. What I didn’t understand was that this was part of my conditioning; to internalize a sense of shame for questioning that ‘normalcy’. A lot of men never get past this programming and never unplug. It’s just too embedded in “who they are”, and the resulting internal conflict will prompt them to deny the realities of their condition and sometimes actively fight others who challenge the normalcy they need in order to exist.

Once I’d gotten past the self-shame, I began to notice other patterns and interlocking social conventions that promoted this fem-centrism. From the macro dynamics of divorce laws and legal definitions of rape, to the gender bias in military conscription (drafting only men to die in war) and down to the smallest details of mundane water cooler talk in the work place, I began to realize just how overwhelming this influence is on our existences.

Observing the Framework

Recently I listend to an advice radio talk show where a woman called in in emotional distress with her husbands actions. Apparently she’d dated the man for a year or two before marriage and they talked about how neither wanted children from the outset. Prior to the marriage both agreed, no kids, that is until about a year into their marriage the wife had secretly gone off the pill and made deliberate efforts in her sexual activities with her husband in order to conceive. Trouble was she wasn’t getting pregnant. Only later did the man confess that he’d had a vasectomy so as not to risk having kids with any woman he paired up with.

The ensuing indignation wasn’t directed at the woman’s admitted duplicity and covert efforts to deceive her husband into thinking she’d had an accidental pregnancy, but rather all the fires of hell were concentrated on this man’s alleged deception of her. This serves as a prime example of how the feminine reality frames the directions of our lives. Publicly and privately, not even an afterthought was spared for the woman’s motivation and desperate measures to achieve her sexual imperative because the feminine imperative is normalized as the CORRECT goal of any conflict. A woman’s existential imperative, her happiness, her contentment, her protection, her provisioning, her empowerment, literally anything that benefits the feminine is not only encouraged socially, but in most cases mandated by law. Ironically, most doctors require a wife’s written consent to perform a vasectomy on a married man; not because of a legal mandate, but rather to avoid legal retaliations and damages from a wife. By hook or by crook, her imperative is the CORRECT one.

Some will argue that it hasn’t always been thus, and that in certain eras woman have been reduced to property like cattle. While that may have some merit I would argue that the perpetuation of this notion better serves the new feminine reality in promoting a need for recognition of victim status and thus a need for restitution. The truth is that even the most ardent supporters of reconciling a “patriarchal past” are still operating in the feminine realty in the now. Other than sultans and emperors, very few men born prior to the dark ages have ever really ‘owned’ a woman.

Sexual Revolution

I got into a hypothetical debate with an online friend as to what it would mean to humanity (and masculinity in particular) if a new method of birth control was developed with the specific and unique ability to allow men to control conception to the same degree women were given with hormonal contraception in the mid-sixties. I thought it interesting that human effort could create reliable contraception for women in the 60’s, yet in 2011 we can map the human genome and yet not figure out how to afford men the same degree of birth control?

Put simply, the feminine imperative will not allow this.

Imagine the social and economic damage to the feminine infrastructure if Prometheus gave such fire to Men? Imagine that balance of control veering back into the masculine; for men to literally have the exclusive choice to fulfill a woman’s sexual strategy or not.

The conversation got heated. Men could never be trusted with such a power! Surely humanity would come to a grinding, apocalyptic end if the feminine sexual strategy was thwarted by reliable male contraception. Societies would be sundered, populations would nosedive, and the nuclear family would be replaced with a neo-tribalism dictated by men’s sexual strategies. Honestly, you’d think the discovery of atomic weapons was on par with such an invention.

The ridiculous, pathetic endemically juvenile and perverse masculinity that 50 years of feminization created could never be trusted to further humanity in pursuing their sex’s inborn imperatives.

Yet, this is precisely the power that was put into the hands of women in the 1960’s and remains today. The threat that male contraception represents to the feminine imperative is one of controlling the framework of which gender’s sexual strategy will be the normative. Prior to the advent of female-exclusive hormonal birth control and the sexual revolution that resulted from it, the gender playing field was level, if not tipped in favor of masculinity due to men’s provisioning being a motivating factor in women achieving their own gender imperative. Latex prophylactics were available in the 40’s, and this may have afforded men a slight advantage, but both parties knew and agreed to the terms of their sexual activity at the time of copulation.

Once feminine-exclusive birth control was convenient and available the locus of control switched to feminine primacy. Her imperative became the normalized imperative. His sexual imperative was only a means to achieving her own, and now the control was firmly placed in favor of feminine hypergamy. Whether in the developing world or in first world nations, the onus of directing the course of humanity fell upon women, and thus the feminine reality evolved into what it is today.

Post navigation

30 comments

Well, that’s not quite true. It is true in the philosophical and sexualpolitic sense, but not quite physiologically.

The female oocyte or egg, being a big, cell that has a relatively long distance to travel, it’s easy to hormonally disrupt that process.

The sperm, they are constantly being produced, they’re small, fast, relatively simple, and don’t have very far to go. This is a much harder process to disrupt with hormones or chemicals, at least not without causing significant side effects.

Still, this physiological truth doesn’t detract from the veracity of your message, which is on point as usual.

I understand the mechanics of it all, but this has always been the standard answer as to why no Male Pill exists; women only have one cell to account for, men have millions.

In the 60s this may have been reason enough to foot-drag on developing a male contraceptive, but 50 years of bio-tech later it’s now a canard. We can sterilize men with vasectomies, but we lack the technical know-how to make a more reversible “on-off” form of the procedure? We can develop Viagra (ostensibly to better please women sexually) but not commit any investment into male contraception? We can transplant hearts, livers, kidneys and even corneas to allow the blind to see, but we don’t know how to develop a convenient procedure to allow men to be fertile at the time of their choosing?

My suspicion is that we lack the political will to do so than lacking the technology to do so. The feminine imperative dosen’t want to afford men this power – and once a true form of male contraception is developed you will see how violently it will fight to repress it with every social element it has at its disposal.

“most doctors require a wife’s written consent to perform a vasectomy on a married man”

If this is not mandatory, are not doctors (for the classic market law supply-demand) not requiring that wife agreement receiving many request for intervention?

If this is/becomes mandatory…

Can not a man lie to the doctors? Can not he declare he is single?

If the wife discovers he did vasectomy, can he just destroy every paper and declare he did it very young?

Vasectomy is so difficult intervention? Can not men pay cash some male nurse to do it night time in secret? And if paper is required, can men not pay doctors to write in these papers they did it many years before?

The feminine mindset is the majority mindset (woman and most beta-men), so people like us on this site are in the minority. Just drive around an average suburb and see all the houses with provider-AFC-husbands and controlling/domineering-wives, they sit in church with a beta-pastor telling them to be sensitive, and kids going to schools told to sit there and be quiet, and then at night instead of sex they all watch tv, then for the second time that day they go back to sleep. Even most men seem to want (a LTR/affection/love/family/house) more than just (sex/multiple women/privacy/less stress/Freedom). I did years ago too based mostly on religious conditioning and it took a lot of pain, struggles, interacting with crazy women, and much information (such as, discovering that the original Greek word was mistranslated in the bible into fornication and the original word used then was not about pre-marital/non-marital sex), making myself/my own goals/exercise/my own business – my priority/mission (and I will not get married even with a PNA to protect my own business, and learning about Game to reclaim and project my natural masculine nature as a man. I don’t know why condoms are not 100%, with all of our technology it seems like condoms (or another barrier type method) that is 100% effective could be made. It appears that every mainstream society around the world is still old fashioned and (Shh) cannot openly talk about sexual subjects unless it is calling sexual acts by males crimes to be punished.

There’s been a lot of inter-blog conflict brewing with regard to “Team Woman” and how women’s interest is really humanity’s interest. I wrote these last two entries in an effort to cast some light on the reality of that.

When you get into debates and details about intergender issues, it’s always important to undertand that the plugged-in people you’re trying to make a point with can’t see beyond a feminine defined reality. Anything counter to their investment in this reality is offensive to them; often so much so that they’ll dismiss empirical evidence, cogent relationships and valid arguments before they have a chance to plant a seed of doubt about how invested in it they truly are.

Sometimes I think to myself that this whole feminism-is-everywhere issue is a bit exaggerated. I agree that most (as in 99%) of the relationships debate is female-centric but it looks like alot of effort to sully every sitcom and TV show with feminine “censorship” that rids males of every drop of masculinity. I’m just

And regarding male contraceptives:
If your girl “accidentally” forgets to take the pill and gets pregnant, wouldn’t it be tactical to suddenly act as beta as you can so that she might have a “natural” abortion?
I mean, it’s been said so many times in the manosphere that women despise beta males so much that they would rather cuckold them and have their offsprings from an alpha, right? and being beta is natural to most males anyway, so 1+1 = ….

I’ve found that what works is to be clear that you’ll forever leave the country unless she aborts.

Of course you’ll need to be believable, and therefore have the means to do so.

Being beta as the girl gets pregnant is not a sound strategy, as her hormones are driving her into nesting mode, where she will tolerate more beta traits. She would fight more and cause lots of useless drama, but not push for separation. Instead it would appear as a constant power struggle going nowhere.

I don’t know if a hormonal solution is possible for men, but then I am also not a fan of messing with hormones in the first place unless absolutely necessary for health. However, one can combine a vasectomy with multiple, distributed sperm storage facilities* in case the vasectomy proves non-reversible. It may cost some and you may have to jump through some hoops or visit foreign countries to have it done, but it is possible.

In other words, it’s all about frame control. The current social frame is the fem-centrist frame, and Team Woman wants to keep it that way. The red pill and Game are mens’ efforts to a) become aware of the fem-centrist frame, and b) establish their own frame.

I’m curious as to how open you were with females close to you when going through this self-shame period. Did you attempt to explain what you have found, and did any of your female friends agree with what you noticed?

There is nothing wrong with having a vasectomy. I had one done after I had the two kids I wanted. There is a bit of contravercity that some how women can sense your subsequent infertility – especially if she was married to you prior to the operation, maybe that was a factor in my divorce?
It is a lifetime decision, but if you don’t want any more children, at least you have control on the outcome. Sexually, there is no difference. You do not shoot blanks as they say, but maybe not as much as before.
It is better than a hysteretomy – my experience is that after menopause the woman’s sex drive dries (as per her vagina) up.
But a male pill, especially prior to a night out would be a winner

It’s only a matter of time. Some guy with bookoo cash is going dump some money on the male pill, and we will have it.

When some rich guy on the hook for alimony/child support figures he has had enough, he will drop some of what cash he has left to get back at the system.

There are enough guys, rich and poor, who have been victimized by the fembot system. The only problems are:
1. They don’t know who victimized them
and
2. They don’t know there is an active and growing resistance.

Both of these problems are being addressed by the manosphere each and every day.

I read this post to my wife. Although she agreed that this was a deception on the part of the wife, she stated that this would be equally duplicitous if the husband had deceived the wife (by impregnating the wife against her consent).

But she also stated that the husband deceived the wife by not revealing the vasectomy on the grounds that couples change their minds over the course of a relationship about having children.

Interestingly, she also said that she would be happy if, for example, her brother was in such a situation – she would have been secretly glad that her brother’s line (and their father’s) would continue into the next generation. Surely, that plays into the male evolutionary plan?

I’m not the kind of guy who would kick a hot chick out of bed for having a weird looking toe, but I don’t think I would be able to get that image out of my head if I slipped off a high heel and saw that monkey paw with a half missing pinky toe and bunions staring at me.

Hello Rollo, community. Recent lurker and first time poster… There may be more to it than simply the feminine imperative. You see the perfect male contraceptive has already been invented, but has been having a hard time reaching the public, so much so that most people are still unaware of it…RISUG

However, consider how this ultra-cheap, ultra-safe, long-term, totally reversible form of birth control would affect the profits of Bog Pharma. One of the failings of our modern crony-capitalism is that “treatments are better than cures.” The truth is that the Pill messes with hormones and makes already unstable, irrational, and crazy women even moreso. However, a pill every day is a LOT of money. If RISUG went mainstream, and is so cheap, how many men wouldn’t jump on it?!? The Pill would go into widespread disuse because it would not longer be needed (save those women who take it for their skin complexion or whatever), and all of those reoccurring monthly profits would vanish over the course of a year or so as men went in for the procedure…

Also, on a semi-tangent…Big Pharma is owned by Big Money, which goes back to the banks, the Fed, and ultimately dynasties like the Rothschilds (still in power in spite of their low profile) and similar families…mostly ruled over by crotchety old men…how does this Big Money (“Illuminati” if I wanted to be more sensationalist about it) interact with the feminization of society? My guess would be that the powerful men on the top find it advantageous if most men subscribe to the feminized beta programming to be better workers/providers/cogs in the matrix…

Another semi-tangent: Among my vocal social-justice “post essentialist” friends, they ascribe to some post-human social reality where we do truly live humans with humans on a level playing field. Yet in many ways as much as women play into the Matrix, mostly unconsciously as with most men, it harms them as well. The ironic thing is if more women TRULY awakened and faced these harsh so-called “red-pill realities” THEN we could actually move closer to an honest discussion about creating a more truly just an equanimous society. If I ever do marry, it’s going to be with a woman who really GETS this stuff, so that when she and I relate with one another, we do it from a basis in reality and not our programming or fantasies, or pipe-dreams…

A lot to digest the last few days since finding this blog, and while in some ways I wish I would have found this stuff 12 yeas ago when I was 20, it coincides amazingly with the inner work and outer I have been doing on myself lately, coming into my power as a man in my mid-30s.

“The ironic thing is if more women TRULY awakened and faced these harsh so-called “red-pill realities” THEN we could actually move closer to an honest discussion about creating a more truly just an equanimous society.”

I agree, women will have to be totally aware of their shortcomings as well, and be fucking honest about it.

“In the 60s this may have been reason enough to foot-drag on developing a male contraceptive, but 50 years of bio-tech later it’s now a canard.”

Good points in your rebuttal (above) and I agree. The example reminds me of similar technologies that have advanced over time (namely solar and alternatives to fossil fuels) and the power (money) shift that would take place if, say, many stopped buying (using) gas for cars in lieu of electric cars. You’d see quite a power shift.

This is true with the feminine reality (today). If something were invented for men, then you’d have women coming out of the woodwork screaming about how “unfair” it would be for men to have access to it (clearly forgetting their own arguments in the past about “her body is her own” or “equality”).

That’s what makes it pretty sad and entertaining. Watching it all spin and how ridiculous women sound arguing against, in a sense, their past arguments “for” them.

I’m not sure I get the link between birth control and social power. In the 60s women got the option of having sex without having to worry about the burden of childbearing… and so they no longer had to secure a man’s long term provisioning? They could finally… have sex with alphas and get beta men to raise their kids? Could they not do this before? I am missing something.

“Imagine the social and economic damage to the feminine infrastructure if Prometheus gave such fire to Men? Imagine that balance of control veering back into the masculine; for men to literally have the exclusive choice to fulfill a woman’s sexual strategy or not.”

I don’t get it. Say men could be sterile whenever they wished. Women would still want to have babies, so they would have to be more pleasing in general to convince a man to have a baby with her? Would you please expand on the social and economical damage to the feminine infrastructure if men had that power? Or at least point me in the right direction if you wrote about it in more detail already.